Originally Posted by thismama
AND, if I may continue on my soapbox for a moment, my understanding is that discussion of sexuality is acceptable if it is in relation to conception, pregnancy, or childbirth.
Wow, I hope so. Otherwise, buhbye fertility forum!
I'm really sad to see my explanation of the humor of the line being used to justify support for its removal. I like it. I think it's funny. I think any kid old enough to "get it" is old enough to see it - otherwise, we better not mention "doing the deed" anymore (although that's far
more explicit than the wording of the ad).
But mostly, I wish if anyone wanted to discuss the right of an ad to be here, they'd talk about it within the rules set by MDC
- that is, if the complaint is that an ad violates the rule regarding sexual innuendo, then that's what should be discussed (and preferably, with a moderator). If someone thinks an ad violates a rule, but they can't find that rule written down, then they should ask for clarification. If they think there should
be a rule against x, which the ad would then violate, they should suggest that x be made a rule - using that ad only as impetus for the discussion, not as fodder for it, and also understanding that MDC has a contractual obligation to finish the run of the ad, which didn't violate any rules when the contract was made
Which, of course, is not to say that one can't express one's opinion about ads - but if all one wants to do is talk about it, and not try to change it, shouldn't it be in TAO, rather than Q&S?
Anyway. That's what I wish for this community.
Oh, and for the ad to stay, not that it's up to me (I completely understand your wanting/having it pulled, Adina - but I'm still allowed to be sad, right?). But that probably belongs in TAO.